Ignophobia – Nathan Mallory's Weblog

When I first heard that the new Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith might be laden with political, anti-Bush messages, one part of me was inflamed at the thought of George Lucas (as though he couldn’t screw up his beloved series any more) lacing this final chapter with partisanship. The other part of me was saddened that, whether intentional or not, skeptics were looking for such messages in the midst of our beloved melodramatic space opera.

Personally, I had found little reason to quibble after I saw the film at the Arclight a few days after it was released. It contained some definite “political messages,” but it wasn’t a political film by any stretch, and given what I knew of George Lucas’ dislike of President Bush and how much he could have inserted, I cut my losses and dismissed the political klaxons in my head as paranoidly looking for windmills with which to tilt.

But oh, how wrong I was.

I since stumbled upon a leaked draft of the Ep III script, which is pretty authentic considering it was reported on at least a week before the film’s release. It is spot-on accurate for every line the film I can remember, but also includes numerous lines and entire scenes left out of the final version. I’m saddened to say the deleted parts leave little doubt that Lucas intended the political aspect of RotS to be a commentary on the Bush administration, the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq generally.

*** OBLIGATORY SPOILER WARNING ***
A couple of the more salient points include:

Regarding the Patriot Act:

PALPATINE: There are times when we must all endure adjustments to the constitution in the name of security.
ANAKIN: With all due respect, sir, the Council is in no mood for more constitutional amendments.
PALPATINE: Thank you, my friend, but in this case I have no choice . . . this war must be won.

• These lines were cut from the scene when Palpatine informs Anakin he will be his personal representative on the Jedi Counsel. (as a side note, yes I am aware the Patriot Act is not a constitutional amendment)

Regarding Bush and Republicans generally:

• When Palpatine has been disfigured and is announcing the Galactic Empire to the Senate (from which Padme’s now-famous quote, “So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause,” stems), a few additional lines were deleted:

PALPATINE: In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
PALPATINE: (continuing) An empire that will continue to be ruled by this august body, and a sovereign ruler chosen for life . . .
PALPATINE: (continuing) An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . .

• Maybe I’m reading too much into this one, but do I smell some Democrat minority angst here?

And let’s not forget the politically-charged that actually made it into the film:

PADME: What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?
. . .
PADME: Anakin, this war represents a failure to listen . . . Now, you’re closer to the Chancellor than anyone. Please, please ask him to stop the fighting and let diplomacy resume.

The final line, and the one that stuck in my craw from the moment I heard it, isn’t as much about current politics as modern philosophy, and I think is more dangerous and hair-raising than any of George’s whiney sour grapes lines:

OBI-WAN: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic … to democracy.
ANAKIN: If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.
OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

Anakin’s line here is arguably a jab at Bush’s 2001 comment regarding the war on terror (though in light of the deleted and other lines it seems increasingly likely). It’s Obi-Wan’s second line that bothers me – if only Sith Lords deal in absolutes, what do the good guys deal in? The logical answer seems to be the opposite, which would be moral relativism. Contrary to what the Jedi seem to espouse (ironically it is actually Palpatine that urges Anakin to take a look at the softer side of Sith, not merely that Sith = Evil), Obi-Wan’s message here seems to indicate that good and bad are relative ideas, and that strict or enforced morals are dangerous and oppressive. This is the school of thought that gives sympathy to terrorists and frames all political issues from homosexuality to abortion in terms of individual rights upon which we must not infringe. Why not? Because my morality may not be your morality, and who are you to impose your morality on me?

Fortunately, this brief homage to “no true good or evil” is easy missed, since it is so contrary to Star Wars’ consistent message of pure good (Jedi) and pure evil (Sith). Like Lucas’ abhorrent writing and abysmal directing, pointless partisan commentary serves no purpose other than to further denigrate an already beleaguered series. It’s fortunate that someone got to Lucas – as someone no doubt must have – and convinced him to remove some of the more shameless moments, references to some newfound “constitution,” etc., or Revenge of the Sith really would have been seen as a political movie with an unabashedly political message. Well done, George! You’ve successfully completed six episodes of the Star Wars saga without shattering the childhoods of thousands (despite your best efforts, I might add).

Whenever I hear talking heads on either side of the aisle spout about the threat of “activist judges” legislating from the bench, the legal-minded part of me cringes. Bill Maher jokes that in a world of terrorism and pretenses for war, “activist judges” are the least of our worries, while Sean Hannity says that judges with lifetime tenure can’t be allowed to unaccountably reshape the law as they see fit. I think the truth of the matter falls somewhere in between.

The United States has always subscribed to a common law system of jurisprudence, adopted from the British system from which we derive many of our legal principles. Under that system, laws are adopted through a variety of means (legislative acts, executive orders, constitutional amendments, etc.), and it is the job of the judicial branch – judges – to flesh out the meaning of those laws. That means that simple phraseology used by legislators, such as granting Congress the power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the powers granted to them (Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18 of the US Constitution), gets scrutinized and considered by judges to determine how those standards should be applied. Unless overturned by a higher court, one judge’s interpretation of that law then receives the full weight of law in the future – in essence, it becomes another way of deciding what the law is. It’s always been done this way, and it’s important that this privilege continue. Judges become the final arbiters of how laws are applied because the laws themselves are not written specifically enough to be directed to every applicable case! To do away with judicial interpretation would require a law to be on the books for every conceivable scenario, and even then new, unforeseeable interpretations would still crop up (for example, how the Internet is changing the way we view traditional copyright laws).

So judges need their power to apply the laws in specific cases. The problems arise when they use this interpretive power to make laws where the shoe doesn’t really fit. Abortion is an example of this – framing the abortion of a viable fetus in a woman’s right to liberty or freedom to contract. The judges are in a Catch-22 here, when there is no law on the books applying to the specific situation and yet they are called upon to make a ruling because the case at bar requires it. Most often they do the best they can, but in truly polarizing issues, it’s impossible to keep personal beliefs from creeping in. This problem has been the source of numerous heinous court rulings and the potential for abuse is real. But the solution is neither to dismantle the common law system by neutering judges nor to put the fear of God into them by removing them from office whenever a politically unpopular decision is written.

Despite the fact that E3 is always about what’s new and upcoming, I always walk away from it feeling like I just saw the same show, again and again and again.  It was a good time overall – the first day impressive and glitzy and packed with bodies.  On the second day, the layout and location of major attractions becomes familiar; you know what you haven’t seen and need to see.  By the third day, everyone is visibly exhausted, and excepting the throngs of fans waiting four hours to glimpse Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, markedly less enthusiastic.

Just as the expo in 2000 ushered in the current generation of consoles, this year’s hallmark was, for better or worse, less the games and more the machines on which they’ll be played.  Microsoft really got the ball rolling with the Xbox 360 – the MTV unveiling ("because it’s an announcement too important to keep behind closed doors") was pure marketing genius.  Their firm resolution to be the first next-gen console out the door is admirable and only slightly reminiscent of Sega’s ill-fated Dreamcast (the pearly white casing and promises of expanded online gameplay helped too).  And while it may be too early to tell for sure – Microsoft is a very different company from Sega – it felt to me that Sony succeeded with its Playstation 3 in sucking a lot of the buzz out of Xbox 360’s sails, much like it did to Dreamcast with the PS2 four years ago.  For every selling point Microsoft had for X360, Sony had an even better counterpoint (with one notable exception):

Where Microsoft has an arguable lead, however, is in the online arena.  Their current Xbox Live service can be expanded to the free Xbox Live Silver and subscriber Xbox Live Gold with a great deal less hassle than Sony can set up its own (console-based) online service from scratch.  Beyond simply establishing the service, Microsoft also has more experience providing the service with the current Xbox Live, and they seem ready to take full advantage of this one clear heads-up.  But they are not de facto victors – Sony has the resources and wherewithall to set up a competing online service with the potential of rivaling Microsoft’s if they so choose, and there is no reason a Sony-made service would be inferior to Xbox Live in the long run.  In fact, between Sony Pictures Studios as well as Sony Music USA, a Sony-made service might even given them a leg up on providing consumers the same kinds of "beyond gaming" services that Microsoft seems keen on introducing.  Toss in the multimedia possibilities of the Sony PSP, and you have a Sony Style road to profitable seamless content distribution the likes of which Microsoft will be hard-pressed to counter.

I still think Microsoft has the buzz right now, but only just barely.  The PS3 was clearly "unveiled" in nascent form to deflate the X360 balloon, with no playable games and a launch date that might not even beat next year’s expo.  Microsoft has concrete plans for the next Xbox Live, and will launch worldwide this November with a decent lineup, a playable handful of which were well into development.  But shot for shot, the PS3 simply looked better — X360 games looked like pumped versions of the current generation of games; PS3 looked like the real "HD ERA" (Are we about to see a reversal of graphics capabilities from the current generation?)

1. Marketing-types are geniuses: even if it shamelessly panders to a girl’s innate sense of all things cute, it’ll sell like hotcakes.
2. Swag comes before seeing games, hands down.
3. The glitzy T&A performances for which E3′s booth babes have become famous is as effective on females of our species as “Thank you for calling GameStop, where you can still reserve Scooby-Doo Unmasked!” is on most show goers.